<-- It's a nice pretty sign. It is Wikipedia's way of saying pretty please. But yes, welcome!- Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, according to some, you are a bad, bad editor, all of whose edits are sh*tty in some way or another. [Just wanted to bust ur never-abused-yet cherry.]↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Never abused yet"? Have you read WP:ANI lately? He's the proverbial messenger-who-was-shot.

64/Phoenix, live long and prosper. I've proposed a solution at WP:ANI that may be acceptable for all concerned. Please review and comment. Thanks .... 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a phoenix rising from 64's ashes -- can any allusions be drawn from Winslow? (Guess I'll Google the name. BRB.)

Have come back with nothing. (Other than the supposed meaning of the original place name, related to that given- or surname, in Anglo Saxon as a hill belonging to a friend. [WINE > 'friend'; WINS > 'hill belonging to'?])↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a clue: "Phoenix" and "Winslow" are the names of municipalities in the state of Arizona. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Winslow Motor Hotel is the closest motel to where I live (which I'd preface "not for nothing" except for the fact it is. Nothing, that is.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit[1] maybe you'd do better with a polite request on Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' talk page or the article talk page, because carrying out a dialog by successive edit summaries doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Personally, I'm confused as to why it's a POV issue at all. Saying that an attorney claims she needs more time, or reporting that authorities carried away computers when exercising a search warrant, doesn't seem to be a big slant either way. In the long run what matters is whether they find and prove something, not the form and extent of evidence gathered in one particular search. Anyway, I think your overall series of edits improves the article so thanks for the good work! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned just today about making personal comments. Despite that you made an unnecessary personal comment here. I'm blocking you for 24 hours and topic banning you from the Tea Party movement topic for seven days. That means you cannot edit any pages related to the Tea Party movement, including talkpages such as the moderated discussion; nor can you comment on the Tea Party movement anywhere on Wikipedia, including the talkpages of other users. Violations of the topic ban will result in blocks of increasing duration. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hell? What am I missing in that comment that justifies this? Arkon (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang in there, P&W. Persecution is a hard pill to swallow, but strength comes from adversity. If interested, we can collab on the iced-DOJ article. I've been meaning to finish it off. Always seem to find a way to embark on less-gratifying endeavors, for whatever reason. †TE†Talk 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allen West (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agenda of the Tea Party movement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Agenda of the Tea Party movement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cambalachero (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing it was me in the Moderated discussion that originally proposed the subarticle you are attempting to hijack, I'm going to have to take you to task.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, you had just as much right as anyone else to create that sub-article. You have just as much right as anyone else to edit it, at least for now. P&W went out of his way devising a method to satisfy your need for blockquotes at TPM when nobody else would (albeit, through footnotes). Now you have one better -- An entirely new article to add all the blockquotes you want. Where's the beef? †TE†Talk 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can follow that thread out by checking the material I've posted at the Talk page and DYK page, including links from the Moderated discussion where the creation of such a subarticle was first suggested by me and subsequently discussed. There has never been a need for a subarticle on the Agenda, only on the Constitution as it relates to the agenda.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct, and the content in Agenda of the Tea Party movement does indeed focus on the Tea Party members' understanding of the Constitution, and how it affects their position on such issues as the health care bill. The problem, as I see it, is that there's no established conensus among the academic community that the Tea Party takes an originalist view. Let's move this discussion where it belongs, on the Moderated Discussion (MD) page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If another instance of stalking happens by the editor you mentioned just let me know.--MONGO 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Phoenix and Winslow/Xenophrenic during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Phoenix and Winslow. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Tea Party movement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1865 words and 8 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 18:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

{{subst:ANI-notice} I've reported Ubikwit for his personal attacks on the PD. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing now? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- post removed --

Thanks for your recent correspondence to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Based on that correspondence, it appears the email address associated with this account is out of date. If you get a chance, please update the email address via the "Preferences" tab so a response can be forwarded.

On behalf of BASC, -- Euryalus (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, pleas email us again either through Emailuser or at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org when you see this. Courcelles 23:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • This chapter is closed. Nobody admitted fault and nobody apologized. Time to get some work done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked as you have accepted by email the following:

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has reviewed your appeal. We are willing to offer to unblock your account, with the understanding that any existing sanctions on the account, including the topic ban from the Tea Party Movement case, would remain in effect. Additionally, as a condition of unblock, you would be restricted to using only the Phoenix and Winslow account. This would mean to refrain from renaming that account or creating any others except with the express advance permission of the Arbitration Committee, as well as to refrain from anonymous editing. The single-account restriction may be appealed to the Committee no less than one year from the date of unblock, and no less than one year after the most recent unsuccessful appeal thereafter.

On behalf of the Ban Appeals Subcommittee,

Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Phoenix! There are plenty of articles that you can work on tbat will distance you from tea party movement stuff....let me know if there is anything I can help you with.--MONGO 16:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Militarization of police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarface. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RightNetwork is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightNetwork until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion/Agenda of the Tea Party movement during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a bit concerned about edits like this and this. The first worsens the article and breaks the long-established consensus, and the second uses a false claim of BLP violation to blank a longstanding FAQ. The first is just a poor edit, and I've undone it. The second is more worrying. If I saw you do anything like that again I'd probably block you then post the block for review by my peers. Given your block log, it would be an indefinite block. Please be more careful. --John (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed you chose not to take my advice. As promised, I have blocked this account indefinitely and will seek a review of the block. --John (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P&W, I'm not willing to let your false statement there go unchallenged. I did not block you on the basis of "Just block anybody who disagrees with you." I blocked you because after a warning you continued to mischaracterise this attempt you are making to change the consensus as a BLP matter. It isn't, and nobody thinks it is. Disagreement is normal, but dishonesty, particularly on an important matter like BLP, is not. If you want to get unblocked, you should read WP:GAB and WP:NOTTHEM first. --John (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So instead of blocking me because I disagree with you about content, you blocked me because I disagree with you about the application of policy. As I understand it, the word "suggest" means causing the reader to think that something exists or is true, without directly stating it. Read my most recent contribution to Talk:Waterboarding. When Wikipedia says, "Waterboarding is torture," period, full stop, it suggests that anyone who has ever done it, whether using the exceptionally brutal Japanese method (which has resulted in convictions and death sentences) or the far less intrusive, almost-fraternity-hazing CIA method (which has resulted in absolutely zero convictions in any court), is guilty of torture. Including several living persons who work for the CIA. So when Wikipedia policy forbids "suggest[ing]" that such persons are guilty of torture, I understood that to mean such policy should be applied across the board. Including disputed definitions of actions which no one denies they did. This is a good faith understanding (or if you insist, misunderstanding) of policy. It is not dishonesty. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear. The articles in question have obviously been used for many years by certain editors to WP:WEASEL their way around WP:BLP. CIA employees have engaged in certain conduct and this has never been in dispute, however the criminality of that particular type of conduct is disputed. In real life, the dispute has never been resolved. Nobody has ever been found guilty, or not guilty, of torture in a criminal court. However, these editors have made it a point to resolve the dispute in their own favor within the walls of Wikipedia, without overtly coming out and saying, "These CIA interrogators are guilty of torture." Anyone who disagrees usually ends up being indefinitely blocked, one way or another. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither the place nor the time to be continuing your content dispute about waterboarding, and it is likely to be seen as further evidence that you will not adjust the behavior that led to your block. Above all else, Wikipedia works by consensus (I'm sure people have given you links to it many times before, but really, please, have a good read of it and try to accept it). The consensus on this issue seems to be firmly against you. If you can not find it within yourself to accept the consensus (whether or not it agrees with you), you are very unlikely to be unblocked. Consensus is the key principle of Wikipedia, and those who will not follow it simply can not work here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin This block, as noted above, is under discussion at WP:AN. --John (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The AN discussion concluded that this was a good block. You say that you understand that what you did was wrong. Can you explain what you did and why it was wrong? I think it might be better if you stayed away not just from waterboarding but from any politically contentious area until you have demonstrated that you can edit productively. What do you say about this edit and the summary? I haven't inspected your edits as thoroughly as Stephan has, but he says you haven't done anything productive since 2015. If you are unblocked, what do you intend to spend your time on? --John (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, what I did wrong was editing the Enhanced interrogation article by being bold, rather than laboriously seeking consensus for several days or weeks to remove what I see as a "work around" to bypass BLP. Rather than directly accusing Gina Haspel and several other living persons of committing the hideous crime of torture, Wikipedia editors have defined what they did as torture, and allowed readers to connect two dots that aren't very far apart. Now let's take a look at what I have described as "left-wing fringe" sources. David Sirota, has a "take-no-prisoners mind-set," criticizing not just Republicans but "mainstream Democratic centrists," and writing in an "oppressive" style according to The New York Times, which also describes Sirota as a "manic progressive."[3] He wrote an article for Salon in 2013 entitled "Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle,"[4] and another entitled, "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American."[5] Nate Silver describes Sirota as "playing fast and loose with the truth."[6]

However, what I did was wrong. Very wrong. Describing such individuals as David Sirota as "left-wing fringe" is wrong. They are mainstream, patriotic Americans. And the view that all waterboarding is torture, and that the dispute has been completely resolved in the real world, even in the absence of any supporting court decisions in a jurisdiction where CIA waterboarding actually occurred, is 100% compliant with Wikipedia policy according to a consensus formed by 14 Wikipedia editors. The meaning of WP policy, after all, is always decided (and should always be decided) by whatever group happens to show up that day. I will voluntarily refrain from editing mainspace, in any article that has anything to do with waterboarding, for the rest of my life as penance for this horrible crime. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you don't want to get unblocked and you still haven't figured out what you did wrong, you could've just said so. byteflush _Talk 16:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erring on the side of caution? Is that what I did wrong? In ensuring that Wikipedia is not exposed to any claims of bias or liability for libel? By ensuring that there is no "work around" for WP:BLP violators by defining a particular action by living persons as shockingly criminal, when there has been no court ruling finding any of them guilty? Seriously. Is erring on the side of caution wrong? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being honest about your motivations. I'm afraid I agree with Boing! said Zebedee, Max Semenik and User:Byteflush. Unless or until you figure out how we work here, and specifically what you have been doing wrong, we will have to continue to manage without your help. You are not the first or last editor to come here to sort out our POV for us. You'll find that although it looks like a freewheeling, even anarchic, society, there are certain group values like consensus that you will not be permitted to flout. Indefinite does not have to mean forever, and if at any time in the future you want to post a proper unblock, you are very welcome to do so. One thing to think about is Max Semenik's suggestion of a topic ban from anything related to US politics. If you want help with that, just let me know. Until then, --John (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, thanks for your recent edits to your remarks clarifying your position. My edits to Enhanced interrogation did not challenge the consensus forming at Talk:Waterboarding. It covered a related topic. Not the same topic. I did not, repeat, DID NOT edit the mainspace at Waterboarding after the RFC started.

Your recommendation regarding a voluntary topic ban for any and all articles related to US politics is noted. My work at Al Franken is eminently defensible, as events proved that I was correct. He was a senator, so WP:WELLKNOWN provided an exception to the usual strictures of WP:BLP. At first, efforts were made by certain editors to downplay the allegations because they were only made by one woman (Leeann Tweeden), she's a conservative, and she works for Fox Sports, which is owned by the same corporation as Fox News. Only when four more accusers came forward who were ordinary Democratic Party voters (who had nothing to do with Fox News) were certain editors, as well as Democratic Party leaders such as Kirstin Gillibrand, willing to do what the facts had already demanded. Gillibrand demanded and received Franken's resignation from the Senate.

I respectfully suggest a thorough reading of WP:BLP and WP:BOLD. For my part, I have thoroughly read every word of WP:CON. I recognize (of course) the strong desire and need for consensus. But I also recognize that we live in an extremely litigious society. "[I]n many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. .... For relatively unknown people [such as CIA personnel], editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, I would respectfully add that any claim that "a majority of legal experts agree that waterboarding is torture" is a WP:NOR violation. And WP:BLP cautions against allowing such NOR violations to stand. See WP:GRAPEVINE:

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. ...
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)"

This is a good faith effort to resolve this matter. I am not on some sort of NPOV jihad, or I'd be editing this encyclopedia 12-14 times a day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think I understand your motivation perfectly now and there is no need to explain it further. It seems that you are in essentially a minority of one in thinking that BLP applies in any way here. In such a situation the correct course is to reconsider. I invite you (again) to do so. I repeat that you are welcome to make a properly constructed unblock request at any time after you have reconsidered the actions you took which got you blocked. Other than that there is little point in continuing this conversation. I repeat that I would be happy to help you if you wish to frame a proper unblock, but this process starts with you accepting that you were in the wrong. Take your time, there is no hurry. --John (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, I've already accepted and acknowledged that what I did was wrong. Very wrong. And I've already promised that I will not edit any mainspace in any article that has anything to do with waterboarding. So I've just repeated that acknowledgement and that self-imposed topic ban. I also understand that I am a minority of one on the issue of the application of BLP policy to these articles. I do not have consensus for these edits. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very fast turnaround from I respectfully suggest a thorough reading of WP:BLP and WP:BOLD at 17:47 to I've already accepted and acknowledged that what I did was wrong at 20:02! I will unblock you if you accept a topic ban from US politics. I agree with those at the central discussion who said your contributions in the last years have been unhelpful. Is there another area which interests you? Typically, those who can demonstrate good editing behaviour for six months or a year under a topic ban can apply to have it lifted. There are five million articles to edit, only a few thousand of which are on US politics. Are you still interested in ...military history, Major League Baseball, NFL football, '70s muscle cars, electrical engineering and video games? Because any of those areas would be a positive contribution. Right now, I do not think US politics and you are a good combination. Once again, I don't think you should be in a hurry to be unblocked, and offering to avoid the mainspace isn't that helpful, as many of your disruptive comments and misunderstandings about BLP were not made in mainspace, e.g. [7], and up to yesterday at 17:47. Take a few more days to think about your future here, whether you have really absorbed what you did wrong, and how you feel you can contribute positively here, please. --John (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John, make it a six-month topic ban and it's a deal. If I'm disruptive, I'm certain that I'll be indefinitely blocked again. So if I reach the six-month mark without being disruptive or breaking any other rules, the topic ban should automatically be lifted. That takes care of your "Right now, I do not think US politics and you are a good combination" concern, getting us six months past the "right now" without empowering others to weaponize it. I will cordially direct your attention to both the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations (which were used to smear a huge number of high ranking Republican politicians for years, even though a grand jury ruled that it was all a "carefully crafted hoax") as well as the Al Franken biography as repeated proof that when it comes to WP:BLP and politics, I'm not guided by partisanship. I'm guided by what policy really means, and the spirit of creating a top quality encyclopedia free from bias. At both articles, eventually the consensus moved around to my way of thinking: err on the side of caution. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) No - Are you haggling? It looks like you are. Strike out that part. With your lack of comment indentation I didn't notice John's comment you were replying to. However, after this little gem that was not even a week ago? I'm against unblocking this editor. Even if unblock happens, there must be an indef topic ban on U.S. politics, broadly construed, with a chance for review in six months. byteflush _Talk 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to your behaviour at Talk:Al_Franken. What do you now think of edits like this one? Because I am thinking that you may need to avoid BLPs as well in order to contribute effectively here. It worries me if you think of this episode as something to be proud of. I ask again, if unblocked what sort of work would you intend doing? --John (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct. At that moment in time, the Roy Moore BLP was taking a much harder line against the subject of the biography than the Al Franken BLP, even though allegations against both had been unproven and neither man had admitted wrongdoing. So I felt that both articles should be treating the allegations as roughly the same. Fortunately, the real world did what some Wikipedia editors refused to do: treat them exactly the same. Byteflush illustrates what would happen if an indefinite topic ban is applied. It would just become another point of contention when I try to get the topic ban removed. Certain editors would try to weaponize the process. We need fewer points of contention here at Wikipedia, not more. If returning I would probably go back to military history. Far fewer disputes about policy application, and far fewer editors on a political crusade that puts Wikipedia at risk for litigation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were Moore's alleged victims also entitled to the protections of our BLP policy? Byteflush makes a valid point. You have routinely trashed the BLP policy in pursuit of some crusade against "left-wing bias". Maybe military history would be ok but I worry that in some cases that intersects with BLP and politics. I think as a minimum you have to undertake not to try to protect us against our "risk for litigation" any longer as it seems you have repeatedly exercised poor judgement in this area. BLP is actually a key area for me and the real risk would be allowing you to continue to try to use it as a weapon. It is what you were blocked for and as of your 07:11 post you are still not getting it. --John (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were Moore's alleged victims also entitled to the protections of our BLP policy? Yes, of course they were and are. However, no one was accusing them of committing sex crimes against minors. I wasn't suggesting that Roy Moore's accusers should be treated more harshly by Wikipedia. You've turned that situation on its head. What I was suggesting was that Wikipedia should improve its treatment of Leeann Tweeden, who was (at the time) Franken's sole accuser, so that Tweeden would be treated just as well as Moore's accusers. Isn't Leeann Tweeden also entitled to the protections of our BLP policy, John? BLP policy wasn't being "trashed." I have repeatedly admitted that what I did was wrong, John. It was wrong because it wasn't supported by consensus. When you have consensus, you can do anything. But when you're a minority of one, you'd better sit down and shut up, or you'll be blocked indefinitely.

Policy is really a guideline, except for WP:CON which trumps everything. I fully understand, John. If the mob says that WP:BLP doesn't apply to Waterboarding, then it doesn't apply. If my understanding of WP:BLP differs from yours, and from the mob's, then I am the one who's wrong. Even though my track record at Al Franken and Franklin child prostitution ring allegations suggests that I may be right. I'm definitely wrong and must accept a permanent topic ban from both US politics and BLPs. (Let's not pretend it will ever be lifted, because that wil be governed by consensus as well. And consensus will consist of drive-by editors like Byteflush.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If unblocked, I'll start by going back to the T-34 article. I've seen your name in its edit history, so you're already aware that I've done extensive work to it over the course of several years. I'll start by breaking off several sections into independent articles because it's too long. The original sections in the T-34 article will remain in substantially shortened form. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article certainly needs substantial work. Policy is not a guideline, and BLP certainly needs to be taken more seriously. The effect of that comment was to traduce the honesty of living people, who were also (allegedly) victims of a crime. Language like "drive-by editor", "the mob", and "sit down and shut up" gives me pause. This is a collaborative endeavour, and while dissent is always acceptable and even welcomed, you do also need to be respectful of consensus. Let me think about it for a few days. Perhaps you can do the same. --John (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well John, it's been nearly a month. I've ordered a new book on the T-34 from Amazon and I'm ready to get started. What do you say? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Talk page stalker) Is there a reason that this is being continued? The appeal and ANI discussion both support the block. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean a editor can not be unblocked. Even if the block has been supported, a future request can still be reviewed and can be accepted if it sufficiently addresses the problems. In this case, the blocking admin is considering it, and that is allowed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. John (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]